Rebecca Watson has the story: apparently, someone who still hasn’t apologized for claiming I’d ever targeted him for some kind of undefined vituperation is now demanding that I apologize to Ben Radford, because Radford has made a legal settlement with Karen Stollznow.
Nope. Not going to happen. I don’t apologize for being correct in characterizing Radford as a terrible human being, and the fact that he spent, by one estimate, over $100K on an attack dog lawyer to browbeat Stollznow and her husband into signing a piece of paper on pain of ruining her life further does not suddenly make him a good person, but only confirms that, as I stated, he’s a world-class asshole.
Really, on what planet does compelling a woman to sign a legal document denying previous accusations on the day she’s scheduled to go into a clinic for induced labor somehow affirm that I was mistaken in all of my previous impressions of the guy? It makes him a small-minded cartoon villain on top of all the unpleasant things about him. That he’s smart enough to work the legal system does not change the fact that he’s a leaky sack of shit.
Next you’re going to tell me that because Nixon resigned before being impeached, he really wasn’t a crook, and that because George W. Bush is running free and painting cheesy photos of his pets, you can’t really claim that he dragged the nation into a destructive war that killed thousands. Civil litigation isn’t about determining the truth, it’s about ending a dispute in one way or another. Radford and Stollznow have settled, there will be no further bickering in court, and that’s all that has happened.
Whose estimate?
I hope this answers the questions of a certain ‘Pitter who was derailing multiple threads last week.
Apparently all the True Skeptics have decided suddenly that signed statements (suspiciously similar to the one Radford lied about earlier in this mess) invalidate all other evidence, cannot be obtained under duress, and there’s no such thing as a successful SLAPP suit.
It is, however, good to know that the courts are unbiased laboratories for finding truth, which is why we would never try to sway rulings over things like creationism or religious liberty or libel claims against scientists. Galileo rejected heliocentrism in a signed statement, therefore the Earth is the center of the universe, regardless of what all that other evidence suggests.
Fuck Ben Radford, fuck Hemant Mehta, and fuck the disingenuous shitbags who will buy literally anything if it allows them to cast aspersions on women or the very notions of stalking and harassment.
If you promote a story that turns out to be false, don’t you have an obligation to correct it?
From the not-so-friendly-atheist, Hemant Mehta:
The bloggers he linked to in the post are Greta Christina, PZ, Rebecca Watson, Adam Lee, and Ophelia Benson.
I like how, these days, Hemant doesn’t even bother to pretend he’s not a complete slobbering yes-man to the “movement.”. Take heart, Hemant, maybe some day you can be a big boy like Dawkins or Lindsay too!
I made the mistake of looking at the comments on Hemant’s post. It’s like a slymepit roll call: this collection of people who’ve been obsessively harassing me and many other people are just ranting away in there.
There’s a reason I stopped reading the Friendly Atheist. It’s just another asshole hangout now.
This is the thing that sticks out for me in Hemant’s article. If the accusations were true, writing about them wouldn’t be throwing anyone under the bus, right? And unless your presumption is that Stollznow was lying, how would you conclude that believing her would throw anyone under the bus?
Ben Radford is the walking, talking epitome of the mediocrity that’s celebrated by the skeptical movement. “Look at me, I know Bigfoot is fake! I’m the smartest person ever!” He’s truly a shit writer and a half-assed thinker, yet he’s in an important position at a major organization. If that’s skepticism, skepticism can suffocate on my farts.
PZ @6:
I did the same thing (checked out the comments) and yeah, I’ve no use for someone who provides a platform for the Pitters.
Here’s what that narcissistic, hypocritical dickhead Jerry Coyne has to say on the matter:
“But there comes a time, and the time is now, when those who traffic in such accusations must be called to account, particularly when they’ve erred, tarred someone’s reputation, and then, when their accusations prove to be false, quietly ignore them rather than admit error. This behavior is shameful and reprehensible, and Hemant properly calls it out.”
The cheek of him…calling you “shameless and reprehensible”. Go get ‘im PZ.
Where was this “joint statement” jointly posted? How was anyone supposed to know it was there?
I will just point out that Radford is the one who publicly posted a selfie of himself in bed with Stollznow: he is smirking, she is trying to cover her face, and is clearly unhappy with what he is doing. He is the one collecting a trophy and ignoring consent.
If anyone has tarred Radford’s reputation, it is Ben Radford himself.
So I guess if Karen Stollznow had won, all the people on Radford’s side would have immediately admitted that they were wrong and that Radford is a terrible person? Funny, that is not how I remember it going down when Brian Dunning was convicted…
PZ @12:
None of that matters because you use coarse language and criticize prominent atheists, rather than bowing down to them.
Any antheist/skeptical group employing Ranford, or leaders of an antheist/skeptical group buddies with Ranford, will receive no monies, and total bad-mouthing of their leadership from me. They should expect no less.
Has Michael Nugent written anything about this? Seems like the Nuge would crow about another win for his buddies in the Slymepit.
Wow, Mehta’s really failing at skeptic here:
No, she doesn’t. Unless Mehta’s done some independent interview with her that he doesn’t bother quoting, Stollznow said nothing of the kind. She signed a statement that said “it would be wrong for anyone to believe” the allegations. It would be easy enough (as Jason Thiebeault said on Twitter) to say that the allegations were false (as the statement Radford lied about last year did: “Karen has now acknowledged that her accusations were false”), but that’s not what this statement does. Hemant’s reading into it precisely what, I’m sure, Radford expects people to read into it, but it’s a bit like people thinking “Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead” was making a claim about headaches. What it says and what’s being inferred are two different things.
Well, no, on two counts. First, he was still punished by CFI. That’s undeniable, and an indication of some wrongdoing. Second, this was not a criminal case against Radford. It wasn’t even a civil case against Radford. It was a civil suit against Stollznow, by Radford. Stollznow was the defendant. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning (as I understand it) that Radford can’t file this suit again (as he did the last time it was dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds). Not only was Radford not cleared, but this case couldn’t possibly do so since Stollznow was the one being accused of wrongdoing, and the court took no actual position on the matter since they settled the dispute out of court.
No, it most certainly does not. It, at best, implicitly says that, but by not being explicit about it, also implicitly says the opposite.
Mehta likes to throw around journalistic phrasing and these kinds of posts about journalistic ethics. And yet, good journalist that he is, he throws around a lot of speculation about people’s motives for not posting on this topic rather than actually reaching out to those people for comment. He doesn’t much bother with getting his facts straight even when it concerns words that are placed right in front of him, so I shouldn’t be surprised. I guess it’s easier to make insinuations than do research, but it seems like there’s a term for someone who adopts the outward appearance of a field like journalism or science without actually engaging in that field’s practices. Seems like it’s something skeptics should be aware of.
Ben Radford may well be a jerk, but it seems pretty evident that he did NOT do the things that Stollznow had accused him of doing.
Simply because Ben Radford decided to litigate to defend himself from damaging false accusations does not make him a jerk either. Was he simply supposed to let Stollznow continue to slander him, circulating a false narrative about his actions around the blogs and conferences where he may wish to partake ?
According to Stollznow, “it would be wrong for anyone to believe that Ben Radford stalked, sexually harassed, or physically and sexually assaulted [her]” In other words, she made it up or heavily exaggerated Radford’s behavior, and did so maliciously, to damage his reputation, out of spite due to ugly end to a relationship.
Ben Radford may well be a “jerk”, but I’d say Stollznow is worthy of a far worse descriptor.
Your evidence for that claim is lacking. Dismissed as fuckwittery
There was no false narrative. The real revelation was all the petty crap Radford posted, as I said in #12, for example.
And further, that he would use legal harassment as a tool to force her signature on something is more evidence of the kind of asshole he is. I get far worse than Radford has — the stuff Michael Nugent peddled, and the daily excretions of the slymepit, constitute a far more significantly dishonest false narrative — and I have no interest is suing anyone. Their excesses and chronic dishonesty do far more to discredit them than me.
Stollznow’s problem is that she had Radford pegged accurately. So he’s frantically trying to bury the truth, and spending a lot of time and money to do it.
Amazingly he (Hemant) had an article that looked promising to me the other day – Unless your atheism inspires you to be a better person, what good is it? – So I decided to read that one. The comments though… wow. So much dictionary atheist rage.
Like so many Atheist blogs I still check in and end up finding things I like, usually when they’re critical of religion. Then I’m reminded when I find something like his post on abortion, or readers’ comments as in the post above and inch closer to never visiting again. Hemant Mehta is really all about non-confrontational let’s all be friendly atheists and that works great when you’re ganging up on the religious to mock them, and not so great when you’re making women, lgbt, minorities and so on in your own group uncomfortable. But still, being friendly is important right? *sigh*
@Vadim Sharifijanov
Even if we ignore the things Radford was accused of doing, the things that have been corroborated by multiple sources, we still have the things Radford himself released that showed his sleazy, skeevy behavior and complete lack of boundaries.
But no, a signed statement totes invalidates all the actual independent evidence, right?
Stollznow wrote one article that was removed at the request of CFI and did not name Radford. Stollznow, as near as I can tell from the timeline, did not publicly name Radford until the Indiegogo campaign. Radford was outed as the subject of Karen’s article by multiple different people, foremost among them Ian Murphy.
No, according to the statement (allegedly) signed by Stollznow, released by Radford, and clearly adapted from the statement Radford wrote (radically altering it from a version initially proposed by Matthew Baxter) back in March 2014, and claimed she had signed though she had not. Notably, this version does not say (as the previous one did) that the allegations were false or that Karen retracts them.
Yes, those are certainly other words, in that they bear no resemblance to the words used in the statement.
Considering your lack of familiarity with the actual facts of the case, your say doesn’t amount to much.
@robertwilson:
Mehta’s friendliness is a one-way street, and a narrow one at that.
I’m going to take a page out of Elon James White’s book and say that Hemant Mehta needs to fall down. I want nothing good to happen to him. Fuck him.
I’m sure this will surprise no one, but I still don’t believe Radford. I want to hear from Karen herself before I’ll even consider believing Radford’s allegedly signed statement… and my repost of Karen’s article stays on my blog until she herself contacts me and tells me to take it down.
Radford needs to fall down, too. Both Radford and Hemant need to fall down in a puddle. A wet, muddy puddle… and then they can’t change their wet, dirty clothes all day.
I know they were probably asses all along, but the atheist line-up at patheos is looking shittier every day. I used to read Hemant and JT regularly, but everytime they comment on anything that doesn’t have to do with religion, they just say shitty things, especially regarding women. Oh well, fuckem
That’s because Hemant and JT are only out for themselves, and the money men in atheism these days don’t have a good record when it comes to women, so they’re just trying to fit in. Because having ethical stances of one’s one is haaaaaaaaaaraarrrrrrrrrrrrrd.
First we realised movement atheism was bad, then we figured out movement skepticism was even worse. Until eventually we came to the conclusion that these movements are just a reflection of society as a whole. Clueless assholes all the way down.
I thought Rebecca summed it up perfectly:
The mealy-mouthed way the central clause of that statement is phrased is good evidence that she was in fact not willing to sign a statement that flatly stated the allegations were false.
I read: “Those were some pretty damning accusations. Sure would be a shame if anyone believed them.”
And that was as much of a concession as he could get.
Also, what a fucking tool Hemant has turned out to be. And what a surprise: another one of our esteemed leading thought-thinkers turns out to be an asshole who courts the adoration of scumbags.
Personally, I find the total and utter skepticism 101 fail even more impressive. Leading thought-thinker indeed!
To take the devil’s advocate position, I think Hemant was right in so far as he sought to call this to the attention of PZ and others who had been covering the issue; I’m presuming that, like Greta, PZ might not have been aware of this outcome until it was drawn to his attention. I don’t agree with Hemant that an apology is necessarily owed. Rebecca’s response seems square on target, and PZ’s not entirely off. However, some public recognition of this development clearly did seem appropriate. PZ has done so above, in his own inimitable style, giving the courtesy apparently due. While he probably has little use for it, he has my thanks for his measured response and continuing coverage.
Contrariwise, while I share some suspicions on the lines that PZ voices that the signed document may be the US Court equivalent of pravda, I feel such position of doubt is effectively unfalsifiable — which seems often a hallmark of grounds for caution.
Nohow, while I’ve not been following the case closely, I think my assessment of most of those defending Radford’s position is similar to PZ’s; and I think that even if Radford did not commit the sexual harrassment he was accused of, public release of the selfie seems utterly without justification.
I read Slacktivist, Love Joy Feminism, and No Longer Quivering. I don’t think any of those are in the actual “atheist” tag.
Certainly not Slactivist, as Fred is a liberal, evangelical Christian.
Well, LJF is, but it is really a stand alone there as far as quality and content, in my opinion.
@yazikus,
I think that’s because Libby Anne is not using atheism as her primary blogging identity. She happens to be an atheist but more importantly a survivor of the extreme fundamentalist and homeschool movements. I think that’s made her much more sensitive to general assholishness and she just isn’t going there.
I found JT abrasive and not terribly interesting when he was here at FtB and didn’t follow him over to Patheos. Hemant just doesn’t say anything interesting to me either; the fact that he’s providing cover for the ‘Pitters means that I won’t even bother to check occasionally. Fred Clark is good to read as is No Longer Quivering, but NLQ is hard to take except in small doses. I go into incandescent rage when I read some of the stuff there.
You folks have to be kidding me. I am really not aware of this whole story or who any of these people are. And I don’t care. This comment is strictly related to the comments made above. Do you folks actually consider yourselves skeptics? You didn’t “believe” the woman when she said something you didn’t like, and now that you think she is saying something that you think you like, you are all too ready to “believe” her.
I have no idea if her allegations are true. And neither do any of you. But your naiveté displayed in your acceptance of her “statement” is astounding. If your quotations are correct, she most certainly DID NOT say her previous allegations were untrue. How can a contemporary American adult not recognize pure lawyer-speak when they see it??? If she had wanted to say it never happened she would have said it never happened. What she said what only as much she had to say to keep the plaintiff’s lawyer happy. I have no idea what her motivation was for whatever her initial accusations were, but it should be perfectly obvious what her motivation for this new statement was. I’m guessing some of you chose not to accept the validity of her initial accusation because you felt she had some ulterior motive. She may have then, but her motive now is crystal clear.
johnk83776,
Did you mean to post your comment here? In a thread that is filled with people who did believe the original claims and are skeptical of the meaning of the ‘joint statement’ that was released by the other party (who no one here really believes)? Your whole comment seems backwards.
Hi all,
I’ve looked at the docket for this case. Looks like it was dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion by both parties after mediation, which came after some discovery motions. There’s really not much in the docket, which means this case was settled out quickly, probably after the parties got the initial disclosures and some other discovery. There weren’t any depositions noticed, either, so there’s no testimony floating around out there. It’s a bit unusual for a case like this to settle so quickly, and I agree with Tom Foss @17 and CJO @28 that the statement is very artfully worded, and was no doubt hammered out during mediation. It’s neither an admission nor a denial, exactly. Moreover, there’s no mention of a monetary amount and the parties are bearing their own costs. No settlement agreement has been filed, but it doesn’t have to be as long as the parties jointly agreed to dismiss. I do find the heading on the joint statement — just “joint statement,” with no references to the case or what have you — to be a little unusual, but it’s a preference of mine to be a little more formal with that stuff.
So, tl:dr: the documents show that the case has been jointly dismissed with prejudice prior to the completion of discovery, and without any evidence of money changing hands.
johnk83776 @35, yazikus is right. You have completely misread the comments you are railing against. Next time, read for understanding before you splash your condescension all over those who agree with you.
Bush didn’t drag the US into a war that killed thousands. The full death toll of the Iraq war is closer to a million.
Does Daylight Atheism not count as a good Patheos blog, anymore, then? :D
Though Libby Anne is amazing, too. I also enjoy No Longer Quivering but in small doses because of how angry it makes me.
“browbeat Stollznow and her husband into signing a piece of paper on pain of ruining her life further”
I KNEW IT! She wouldn’t have signed that statement without being under some kind of duress.
I take it we’re still pretending the fact that this kind of thing can not only be done, but done trivially and routinely, doesn’t show the legal system and the profession as a whole – regardless of the redeeming features of particular individual practitioners – is sick to the core?
I really like Adam, but he can be kind of thick sometimes…he kept liberturdian crypto-racist Enoleptus Harding around for something like two years, soddening thread after thread.
Too conflict-averse and pearl-clutchy, from my limited experience.
Changing topics completely, some excerpts from the Recantation of Galileo, 1633:
Legend has it that as he arose from his knees Galileo mutter under his breath:
Anyway, sorry for the completely irrelevant interjection, please carry on.
I never liked the title “Friendly Atheist” because it implied acceptance of the meme that atheists are not friendly.
“Camels With Hammers” is a very good atheist blog at Patheos, and so is “Godless in Dixie.” Just like Freethought Blogs, you can’t take a whole network and generalize based on two blogs you don’t like.
The funny thing is, I had never heard of Ben Radford until this, so i don’t see that he is any sort of giant in the skeptical movement, and I will not forget that he had posted a picture that he took against Karen’s wishes and that makes him sleazy to me.
The slymers over at Ashley’s place are having a field day about this, crowing their victory. Me, I’m with Silentbob and his allusion to Galileo.
Thank you for this information, PZ. The induced labor certainly explains why KS wanted it to be over and move on with her life without being further burdened by litigations. It was my initial reaction to the joint statement when some slymepitter brought it to my attention a few days ago (as I said in Thunderdome) and I was curious whether there is some backstage info that Radford “forgot” to mention ever since. Now I am even more convinced that RS just succumbed to the pressure and signed that statement only to have this shit settled for good and live in peace. I hope she will be well and capable of doing so.
This new statement is most certainly a highly reduced version of the one Radford faslified previous year. The old one can still be found on slymepit via google images search, and the new one is on Radfords twitter, in case anyone wants to compare them. The old one repeated over and over again, that Radford is innocent and Stollznow is liar etc. etc. over multiple paragraphs. In the new one all this has been reduced to one sentence, that slymepitters and thundering fools trot out ever since and write about pages of comments about.
I just remembered about this and I think it is worth to share with the horde for its amusement value (I write from memory and I can not and I do not want to find out the exact details):
In one of his ‘Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?’ video Tf00t made the argument in the general sense (paraphrasing):
This is when he disparages some creationist for essentially argumentum ad verecundiam when they trotted out some creationist lawyer presenting their “proof” of Jesus (I think it was about Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for a Creator’). The narrative being accompanied by picture of the O.J. Simpson case where he makes the “YES” gesture.
Funny thing how now, a few years later, the same Tf00t trots out an out of court settlement signed under economical and emotional duress as a “proof” when he likes the conclusion as if it actually proved anything other than the prowess of Radford’s lawyers.
Lawyers and courts should try and find out the truth in all cases. But they do not in a lot of cases, because they are operated by people who can be selfish, uncaring, malicious and/or downright evil.
Consistency is not the strongsuit of slymepitters and their associates and sympathisers.
Hemant wrote, “Just to verify this, I asked Stollznow last week if she really signed that statement. While she wouldn’t give me a definitive answer, she didn’t deny it either, saying she couldn’t speak about this matter in public.” I won’t speculate on her reasons. Hemant at least contacted her and tried to verify. Has PZ or the other bloggers done as much?
@ 48 randay
I will. Part on the joint statement reads:
Do you think it is possible refraining from any further public comment was a condition of the settlement?
@Charly:
No. Not in all cases. It is right and proper that the courts do not attempt to find out the truth in all cases.
Courts exist to determine when and to what extent government can impede otherwise secure rights. If we murder someone, many freedoms are impeded (and rightly) for many years. If we choose to set up a business handling toxic waste courts might set limits on the government’s ability to impede our freedoms solely because we handle toxic waste, or if we violate reasonable regulations, a court might adjudicate a consent decree restricting our freedoms more than the generally applicable laws and regulations on handling toxic waste because we have proved our business is a risk to the public.
In ***nearly all*** cases finding the truth is an important part of figuring out whether government positions are warranted and/or just.
In some cases however, the truth is irrelevant to determining whether impeded freedom is a just result. In those cases it’s a waste of time to determine the truth of surrounding facts or allegations.
Finally, imagine person X with no credible evidence of harm files a suit alleging that person Y pours canola oil on the fur of pet bunnies solely to amuse person Y’s self at the behaviors that person Y takes to be the bunnies’ distress at the resulting oily feeling. We shouldn’t attempt to determine the truth of person X’s accusation b/c without some initial evidence already present, the odds that person Y is doing that weird thing are low, and the invasion of privacy needed to determine the truth of the matter is serious. We don’t want to hand to our neighbors the power to invade our privacy to such a degree on a whim.
Finally, determining “truth” as you use it is over broad. The court shouldn’t keep pressing to find out if a person is really, really innocent of a crime. The fact that we can’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not imply that we’ve got more truth-finding to do. Even where the courts need to and properly should find “truth” they should only be determining whether (or, if you prefer, “attempting to prove that”) someone “did do X” and not worry about proving that someone “did not do X”.
The courts are not a truth machine. They have a specific function that is horribly impacted if the court can’t access truth when it’s needed…but that doesn’t mean that the court should always be seeking “the truth”.
These are not the same thing.
No they don’t. Firstly, reporting accusations is not an accusation in and of itself. Do newspapers have to apologise for reporting accusations? Secondly, the fact that Stollznow has signed a bit of paper saying it didn’t happen, after dog-knows-how-long legal battles with all the paying-for-lawyers that such things involve, in no way means that it actually didn’t happen. Do these people understand what “duress” means? I’m not saying that it definitely happened, I’m saying that this statement actually provides no hard proof one way or the other. It can not be counted as evidence that it didn’t happen by any reasonable person.
I used to like Hemant a lot, but the more quotes I see from him the further down my estimation he drops.
Sorry; quotes above are from Tony!’s quoting of Hemant in #4.
@Crip Dyke #50
Thank you for the qualification of my erroneous absolute statement. I was aware of those qualifications, but I worded it poorly. However I hope the overall point still stands and can be understood.
I most certainly wanted to say what you summed up (QFT):
Well, that settles it. George Zimmerman, a man with more mugshots thanMadonna has magazine covers, was also cleared by a court, therefore retroactively history changed.
@Charly, #53:
We’re good. The idea of courts-as-truth-machines is well established in public mythology, so I’ve brought it up several times at Pharyngula over the years. I do think the myth needs to be fought, is worth fighting, but I’m also aware that the myth’s deep entrenchment which establishes the need to fight against the myth and the confusion resulting from it ALSO causes even people who don’t believe the myth sometimes to fall back on the familiar language the myth has inspired.
I never think ill of people who propagate the myth unless it’s accompanied by an arrogant lecturing that the myth is true. There have been people who have insisted that they are knowledgeable about legal issues who then simultaneously insist that courts are truth machines. When that is combined with enough other errors of law, or with even one other error of law, but it’s a doozy and clearly demonstrates the writer’s ignorance, then I might lash out. But it’s not ignorance per se. It’s being arrogantly certain one is correct while being so blatantly wrong even someone with as rudimentary an understanding of US law as I have can see it. That “arrogant ignorance” sometimes, in my mind, calls for a loud and raucous takedown (if for no other reason than psychological research has shown that readers tend to believe those who present assertively and with confidence, so when someone is super confident when spouting bullshit, you need to come across **even more confident** and get your facts down right if you want to prevent that bullshit from spreading).
Mostly, though, it’s just about the myth. You don’t show any arrogant ignorance. Your very willingness to adjust your position when met with other arguments you find reasonable and convincing shows that you need nothing of the sort. I’m always happy to chat with folk who are willing to learn and are willing to teach me something when I’m wrong.
CD
You’D think that skeptics would have figured that one out without a constant reminder by the friendly resident lawyer
[/snark]
Not snarking at you, charly
Just at the general constant insistence that “innocent until proven guilty” was about truth and not court procedures.
<godwin>Hitler was never convicted of anything.</godwin>
More seriously:
I fail to see how any reasonable person can perceive that statement as a victory for anyone. It’s vague and weaselly, and doesn’t match the prior positions of either side. It’s clearly intended as a mutually face-saving compromise.
@Giliell #56
Oh, the most certainly did figure that out. They made videos about it, they wrote articles and I bet it was in some books somewhere. But they simply ignore it when it suits them.
Silentbob #49
But surely that can’t cover simply acknowledging that the statement was actually signed, can it? What’s the point of a public statement if you also refuse to admit having made it?
The Cult of Scientology gets defectors to sign statements absolving them of any wrongdoing all the time; does Mehta buy those?
Radford has consistently Streisanded when he should have Shermered. Look at Shermer – apart from a couple of self-contradictory statements, he’s pretended like the accusations against him don’t even exist, and the (infuriating) thing is, it’s basically working for him. He has a huge cadre of defenders, he still has all of his prestige and speaking appointments and whatnot, it’s like it barely made a dent. Radford, on the other hand, has been pursuing this with a VENDETTA, and every action he takes is in itself another data point for his sleaze factor. “We did have a relationship, here’s a picture of us naked in bed together I took when she didn’t want me to to prove it!” Ewwwwwww. “No, I never bothered her, here’s a legal statement I faked her name on and then hounded her and made her life hell until she signed it for real!” EEEWWWWWWWWWWW.
There is nothing about this that absolves Radford from anything, and he brought most of the obvious evidence of that on himself through his own obsession over it.
i for one am perfectly happy to always remember Ben Radford as the guy who picked a fight with a 4 yo and lost
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden
3 June 2015 at 5:23 am
I mean, it’s not like The Innocence Project has any track record of correcting the mythical accuracy of the criminal justice truth machines, eh? As said, courts do not produce the truth but the guilt or innocence based upon statutory law. BIg difference especially when one side has access to lots of time, money and other resources that the other side does not.
Update 3 links to this page and to the responses by Jason Thibeault and Stephanie Zvan without adding a single word of comment or changing/updating any of the main text. The comment count stands at 626.
Enopoletus.
@Charly
A related “funny” pattern is how when discussing harassment and rape accusations they seem to want to have this in-depth legal analysis, but that analysis does not seem to be present when describing the actual legal meaning of the settlement.
In both cases they flee from specifics relevant to the situation.
Al Dente mentioned Michael Nugent. Well, surprise surprise:
https://twitter.com/micknugent/status/605869914478379008
https://twitter.com/micknugent/status/605868646661914624
It isn’t so much crowing victory for the Slymepit crowd as much as crying about PZ hating on Teh Friendly Atheist for the same reason he initially criticized Nugent. What a pair of winners.
That’s because Hemant and Nugent are two birds of a feather. Deep down, they couldn’t give a fuck about atheism/secularism/skepticism. They care about MAKING AS MUCH MONEY AND FAME off of atheism/secularism/skepticism as they possibly can. Grifters gonna grift.
UnknownEric:
Lesser Known Taylor Swift Lyrics for $400, Alex.
Nate @40:
It’s still good by me.
Vadim Sharifijanov, why are you trying to hide behind vagueness? Why can’t you just bring yourself to say it? You think she’s a lying whore.
@Vadim Sharifijanov, #18, by way of marilove, #71:
Thanks for bringing my attention to that comment, marilove. Though it might be simpler than you think:
@David Marjanović #65
Yep, the comment count is over 800 now.
I find it amusing that a frequent charge against PZ, Rebecca, etc. is that they are drama blogger just out for the clicks. Well, look at this – PZ has 72 comments, Rebecca has 18 comments, Stephanie and Jason have even fewer. But Hemant will probably cross 1000 comments soon for disagreeing about them in a drama-provoking way.
Really, the lesson I’m learning is that opposing the “FTB clique” is the way to get clicks.
In a post that’s slightly modified and expanded from my comments here, I elaborated on just how much Hemant’s distorting and misrepresenting just the factual matters of the case (in two brief sentences, no less. It’s very economic misrepresentation), before we even get to the issue of his disingenuous insinuations. It’s in response to the chermingly-named pitter “Shermertron” who’s going around Twitter claiming that if someone tweeted at one of the bloggers Hemant mentioned with any info about Radford’s statement, then that constitutes notification. Is it possible that the pitters, for all their crying over freeze peach, don’t actually understand how Twitter’s block and mute functions work?
I would suggest that any skeptic apparently inclined to consider civil courts “truth machines” might productively be referred to the ruling of Stambovsky v. Ackley (here, via the “Lowering the Bar” blog’s case hall of fame), with particular attention suggested for the phrase “as a matter of law, the house is haunted“.
Courts are a social construct which seems to function as a tool for resolving disputes — more cheaply than some of the alternatives. (EG: trial by combat.) Seeking the truth is a function that they will incidentally attempt, and they incidentally may do so better at that than some of the alternatives (op cit), but that does not appear to be the primary quality where evolutionary selective pressure is applied to such social constructs.
When I was first starting out in my atheism I had a strong aversion to the word “believe.” I usually read it as “accept on faith.” Interestingly, that’s sort of the meaning I’m reading here:
“[I]t would be wrong for anyone to believe that Ben Radford stalked, sexually harassed, or physically and sexually assaulted Karen Stollznow.”
Of course, it would be perfectly acceptable to decide based on the available evidence that Radford is a duplicitous jerk who would post personal photos without consent, threaten with lawsuits, and lie about Stollznow. So yeah, that sounds exactly like a guy who would stalk, harass, or assault. Congratulations Radford, you “won” my undying contempt.
I peaked into the dark side….now i’m blinded by the sheer fucking hypocrisy. Fuck Hemant, fuck Nuggent, fuck any dishonest piece of shit who is pretending like this isn’t what it very obviously is. Thinkers, skeptics…my fucking arse….
Ugh. Shermertron. Yeah, he could scream himself blue at me, and I’d never hear it — I’ve got him blocked everywhere I encounter him.
This is what Bill O’Riley did to his victim.
If O’Riley was an atheist instead of a Catholic, he’d be embraced by these same assholes.
From anteprepro’s link at #67:
That’s as clear a message as can be: if you speak against the actions of any specific perpetrator of sexual abuse-wether it concerns your own or someone else’s abuse- you will be shunned by the the men with influence.
L. Minnik @80
The Great Rift is growing larger. Now if the MRAs and ‘pitters would just stay on their side of the rift then we’d be happy.
kirbmarc is a slymer (also one I just banned again under a new pseudonym). What’s really sad is that the slymepit attitude doesn’t isolate them at all.
It’s also very weird: traffic to my site hasn’t been declining at all. I don’t feel like I’ve been isolated at all, but rather that I have new friends. Friends I can like & respect.
re PZ @ 82:
That’s encouraging :)
But how can you do BIG TENT thingys if you like and respect EVERYONE!?!? Ohhhhh….I got your point.
Or… by the men who’d like to have some influence.